Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Sensing with Driven-Dissipative Su-Schrieffer-Heeger Lattices

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A squeezed Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain with a broken last unit cell detects on-site and non-Hermitian skin-effect perturbations with an exponentially growing, photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio, using a single coherent drive for the…

desk verdict Solid linear-response results for single-drive NHSE sensing in an odd-site SSH chain, but the beyond-linear-response saturation claim for the NHSE rests on an unchecked stability assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13249 v1 pith:QWWWNQH4 submitted 2024-12-17 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Oscar Arandes , Emil J. Bergholtz This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics
keywords quantumsensingnon-HermitianskineffectSu-Schrieffer-HeegermodelsqueezedSSHbosonicKitaevchainhomodynedetectionsignal-to-noiseratioFisherinformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that a chain of parametrically driven coupled resonators described by the squeezed Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model can sense perturbations with a photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio that grows exponentially with the number of unit cells. The essential configuration is a chain with an odd number of sites—a broken final unit cell—which supports a single zero-energy boundary mode. For an on-site perturbation at the end of the chain, the growth appears in the parameter regimes where the odd chain amplifies, and the enhancement survives after dividing by the total photon number. For a perturbation coupling the chain ends (the non-Hermitian skin effect perturbation), the odd chain gives a finite response with one coherent drive, while the even chain's first-order signal is zero. The paper further shows that beyond infinitesimal perturbations the growth saturates at a size-independent value, so the effect is not limited to ideal linear response.

What carries the argument

The central object is the squeezed SSH Hamiltonian, a bosonic chain with alternating squeezing amplitudes t1,t2 and hopping amplitudes γ1,γ2 that, in the quadrature basis, becomes two decoupled non-Hermitian SSH chains of opposite chirality. The argument is carried by a squeezing (Bogoliubov) transformation that maps the stable regime γ1>t1, γ2>t2 onto a simple tight-binding chain, making the inverse dynamical matrix and hence the steady-state signal, noise, and photon number analytically tractable. The factor that produces exponential sensitivity is the ratio (γ1+t1)/(γ2−t2) or its inverse, which appears raised to powers linear in the number of unit cells. The NHSE result additionally relies on a drive position m=αN that moves linearly with system size, with optimal α* set by Eq. (23), so that the exponentially growing part of the response is probed before it is overwhelmed by the photon background.

What would settle it

Re-run the zero-frequency calculation or a numerical simulation of the Heisenberg-Langevin equations for the NHSE perturbation with the drive fixed at m=1: the paper predicts no sustained exponential growth of the photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio, whereas moving the drive to m=[αN] restores it. Observing exponential growth in the fixed-drive case would falsify the mechanism. A second check is the output noise beyond linear response: for the on-site perturbation it should grow from vacuum to match the signal at N*, while for the NHSE perturbation it should remain at the vacuum level as the signal saturates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio for both an on-site perturbation and a non-Hermitian skin effect perturbation grows exponentially with system size, so longer chains sense smaller perturbations exponentially better even when the total photon number is held fixed. For the on-site perturbation the enhancement is governed by the ratio (γ1+t1)/(γ2−t2); for the NHSE perturbation it is recovered by letting the drive position scale as m=αN, with α chosen according to Eq. (23) to balance two competing exponential factors. This requires only a single coherent drive, in contrast to the even chain, whose first-order NHSE signal vanishes and needs at least two drives. Beyond linear response, the signal-to-noise ratio saturates at a value 8τ|β|^2 that is independent of both system size and perturbation strength, with the linear regime breaking down at a size N* set by the ratio of damping to perturbation strength. The paper concludes that the broken-unit-cell squeezed SSH chain turns NHSE sensitivity into a usable, non-fine-tuned resource for quantum sensing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the drive can be placed at a site m=αN that moves linearly with the number of unit cells, with α chosen by Eq. (23), while the chain remains in the stable regime γ1>t1, γ2>t2 and in the large-drive limit |β|≫1; if the drive position is fixed as N grows, the claimed exponential NHSE enhancement does not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Longer chains detect on-site perturbations with exponentially better photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio in the amplifying regimes, so increasing N yields a genuine per-photon advantage.
  • An odd chain detects non-Hermitian skin effect perturbations with a single drive, eliminating the even chain's requirement of at least two drives for a finite first-order response.
  • The linear-response regime extends to larger system sizes for SSH dynamics than for Hatano-Nelson dynamics, with the breakdown controlled by the ratio κ/(4ϵ0).
  • Beyond the linear regime the signal-to-noise ratio saturates at 8τ|β|^2, independent of perturbation strength and system size, giving a bounded but predictable best sensitivity.
  • Numerical validation indicates the sensing scheme remains functional in the presence of local disorder weaker than the perturbation to be sensed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the drive-position scaling m=αN is the mechanism, the same trick could restore exponential NHSE enhancement in other non-Hermitian lattice sensors that currently require multiple drives; the paper does not explore this transfer.
  • The saturation at 8τ|β|^2 suggests an optimal operating point near N*, where the linear-regime exponent is still active; tuning N* through γ2 could be treated as a sensor design parameter rather than a fixed limitation.
  • A direct experimental test would scan the drive position m across an odd chain of fixed length and check that the NHSE signal-to-noise ratio peaks near α*N and that the even chain shows no first-order peak, which would isolate the geometric origin of the enhancement.
  • The paper's disorder-robustness statement is brief; mapping the signal-to-noise ratio as a function of disorder strength relative to the perturbation strength would be a natural next check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a driven-dissipative squeezed Su-Schrieffer-Heeger chain with a broken final unit cell (an odd number of sites) as a quantum sensor. For detecting an on-site perturbation and a boundary-coupling (NHSE) perturbation, the authors derive analytic expressions for the photon-normalized signal-to-noise ratio in both the linear-response regime and beyond it. The central claims are that the odd chain gives exponential SNR enhancement with system size, that the NHSE perturbation can be probed with a single coherent drive when the drive position scales as m = αN, and that beyond linear response the SNR saturates at a size-independent value 8τ|β|². The analytic derivations are detailed and reduce to known bosonic Kitaev-chain results in the appropriate limits.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would strengthen the case that non-Hermitian skin-effect dynamics provide a genuine exponential quantum-sensing enhancement that is not merely due to increased photon number, and it would identify a simpler single-drive protocol than the even-chain setup of Ref. [61]. The manuscript's strengths are its parameter-free analytic derivations from the Hamiltonian, its explicit regime classification, and the recovery of existing BKC results as limits. The main weakness is that the beyond-linear-response NHSE saturation claim rests on a steady-state calculation whose dynamical stability is not checked near the pole identified by Eq. (35).

major comments (1)
  1. [Section VI] The disorder-robustness statement is unsupported as written. The Discussion says that the scheme 'remains valid in the presence of local disorder, provided the disorder strength is smaller than the perturbation to be sensed, consistent with findings from recent work [80]' and that all analytical findings were numerically validated, but no disorder model, ensemble, parameters, or numerical results are shown. Please either provide the supporting numerical evidence (for example, in an appendix or figure) or clearly label this statement as a conjecture rather than a verified result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VI] The sentence 'all analytical findings have been thoroughly validated through numerical simulations' is not backed by any visible numerical data or code in the manuscript; please indicate which figures or appendices contain the numerical validation, or provide the data as ancillary material.
  2. [Figures 5 and 6] The captions for Figs. 5 and 6 state that the plots show scaling behavior but do not specify whether the curves are the analytic expressions from Appendix F, direct numerical integration of the Heisenberg-Langevin equations, or both; please state this explicitly and, if numerical, give the integration parameters and the numerical method.
  3. [Appendix F, Eq. (F6)] The photon-number expression in Eq. (F6) contains an unmatched parenthesis and some exponents that are difficult to parse; please re-check and reformat this equation for readability.
  4. [Section IV, around Eq. (23)] The condition for the minimum chain size, α* N_min ≥ 1, assumes that αN is an integer or that the floor [αN] is a negligible correction; please clarify how the integer part of αN affects the optimal scaling for finite N.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SNR scalings are derived from the Hamiltonian with no fitted parameter; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than fitted. The SNR expressions in Eqs. (19)-(22), (24)-(27), and (F2)-(F12) follow from solving the Heisenberg-Langevin equations (7)/(B1) for the Hamiltonian (1), using the Dyson series (C1) and the closed-form inverse matrix elements (D2, G3-G4), then applying the input-output definitions (B8)-(B11). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and renamed as a prediction. The optimization of the drive position alpha* (Eq. (23)) is a design choice that balances two independently derived exponential factors; it does not inject the target result. The even-chain zero NHSE signal is taken from Ref. [61], an independent group, and is used only as a comparative benchmark. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [11,23,73]) appear in background and motivation, and the zero-mode statement is standard and not load-bearing; the sensing formulas are derived from the microscopic dynamics. The beyond-linear-response saturation at 8 tau |beta|^2 follows from explicit all-orders matrix elements (Appendix G), and the pole at Eq. (35) is identified by the authors. Whether a steady state exists for N > N* is a stability/validity question, not a circularity. Accordingly no derivation step reduces to its own input, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is parameter-free given the model Hamiltonian and standard input-output assumptions. One hand-chosen optimization, the drive fraction α, is required for the NHSE enhancement. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • drive position fraction α = condition (γ2+t2)/(γ1-t1)^{α*N-1} ≈ (γ1+t1)/(γ2-t2)^{N(1-α*)} (Eq. 23)
    Chosen by hand to maximize the SNR scaling exponent for the NHSE perturbation; enhancement only occurs for m=αN.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Markovian input-output formalism with Gaussian white noise (Eq. 8, Appendix B)
    Underlies the Langevin equations and SNR expressions; standard for cavity-waveguide systems.
  • domain assumption Large-drive limit |β|≫1 where homodyne detection achieves the QFI bound and coherent photons dominate the photon number (Section III, Eq. 18)
    Needed to equate SNR to quantum Fisher information and to ignore amplified vacuum photons in the normalization.
  • domain assumption Stability regime γ1>t1 and γ2>t2 (Appendix A)
    Ensures no growing modes; the opposite regime is dynamically unstable and excluded.
  • domain assumption Even-chain NHSE signal is zero at first order, taken from Ref. [61]
    The comparison advantage over the even chain rests on this external result, not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Sensing with Driven-Dissipative Su-Schrieffer-Heeger Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWWWNQH4

@misc{pith2026241213249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Sensing with Driven-Dissipative Su-Schrieffer-Heeger Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWWWNQH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13249}
}
read the original abstract

The remarkable sensitivity of non-Hermitian systems has been extensively studied and stimulated ideas about developing new types of sensors. In this paper, we examine a chain of parametrically driven coupled resonators governed by the squeezed Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model. We emphasize the qualitative difference in sensor performance between configurations depending on bulk topology and boundary modes, specifically for detecting both on-site and non-Hermitian skin effect perturbations. Our analysis goes beyond the scenario of infinitesimal perturbations, extending to arbitrary perturbation strengths beyond the linear response regime. We stress the importance of optimizing the system's parameters to achieve quantum enhancement while avoiding fine-tuned regimes that could limit the practical applicability of this system for real-world quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Chain of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dynamics of a chain with 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Phase diagram according to the response of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Scaling of the SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The plot shows the scaling of the signal-to-noise ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum dynamical signatures of non-Hermitian boundary modes

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-06 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A solvable bosonic SSH chain with sublattice dissipation displays a positive Liouvillian separation gap that dynamically isolates the non-Hermitian boundary mode, yielding detectable density and polarization signatures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [61]

    McDonald and A

    A. McDonald and A. A. Clerk, Exponentially-enhanced quantum sensing with non-Hermitian lattice dynamics , Nat. Com- mun. 11, 5382 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [80]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, et al., Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification , Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [1]

    Solving the dynamics for the on-site perturbation. The Heisenberg-Langevin equations (B1) for the on-site perturbation ϵ ˆVN = ϵ ˆa† N,AˆaN,A = ϵ 2 (ˆxN,A ˆxN,A + ˆpN,A ˆpN,A) are given via ˙ˆxn,A = −(γ1 + t1) ˆxn,B + (γ2 − t2) ˆxn−1,B − κ 2 ˆxm,A δnm + ϵ ˆpN,AδnN − ( √ 2κ|β| cos θ + √κ ˆX in) δnm, ˙ˆxn,B = +(γ1 − t1) ˆxn,A − (γ2 + t2) ˆxn+1,A, ˙ˆpn,A = −...

  4. [2]

    γ1 +t1 γ2 −t2 N γ1 −t1 γ2 +t2 − γ1 −t1 γ2 +t2 N γ1 +t1 γ2 −t2 # √ 2κ |β| sin θ, (B38) so that the signal is given by Sτ (N, ϵ) = 32τ ϵ2 κ2 |β|2

    Solving the dynamics for the NHSE perturbation. The Heisenberg-Langevin equations (B1) for the NHSE perturbation ϵ ˆVNHSE = ϵ(eiϕ ˆa1,Aˆa† N,A + e−iϕ ˆa† 1,AˆaN,A) = ϵ cos ϕ (ˆx1,A ˆxN,A + ˆp1,A ˆpN,A) − ϵ sin ϕ (ˆp1,A ˆxN,A − ˆx1,A ˆpN,A) are given via ˙ˆxn,A = −(γ1 +t1) ˆxn,B + (γ2 −t2) ˆxn−1,B − κ 2 ˆxm,A δnm − ( √ 2κ|β| cos θ + √κ ˆX in) δnm + ϵ cos ϕ...

  5. [3]

    We fix the following parameters: the drive position m = 1 and the measuring angle φ = 0 (i.e., we measure the x-quadrature)

    Solving the dynamics for the on-site perturbation. We fix the following parameters: the drive position m = 1 and the measuring angle φ = 0 (i.e., we measure the x-quadrature). For the on-site perturbation ˆVN we consider a drive with θ = π 2 , for simplicity. We then substitute the matrix elements of [ ˜HN (ϵ)]−1, computed to all orders (see Appendix G), ...

  6. [4]

    We fix the following parameters: the driving phase θ = π 4 , the NHSE perturbation phase ϕ = π 2 and the measuring angle φ = 0 (i.e., we measure the x-quadrature)

    Solving the dynamics for the NHSE perturbation. We fix the following parameters: the driving phase θ = π 4 , the NHSE perturbation phase ϕ = π 2 and the measuring angle φ = 0 (i.e., we measure the x-quadrature). We do not fix the position of the drive m. Substituting the matrix elements of [ ˜HNHSE(ϵ)]−1, computed to all orders (see Appendix G), into Eqs....

  7. [5]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian Physics , Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  8. [6]

    E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Exceptional topology of non-Hermitian systems , Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021)

    2021

Show all 89 references
  1. [7]

    H. Shen, B. Zhen, and L. Fu, Topological Band Theory for Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians , Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 146402 (2018). 22

    2018

  2. [8]

    Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, et al., Topological Phases of Non-Hermitian Systems , Phys. Rev. X 8, 031079 (2018)

    2018

  3. [9]

    Kawabata, K

    K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Symmetry and topology in non-Hermitian physics , Phys. Rev. X 9, 041015 (2019)

    2019

  4. [10]

    J. L. K. K¨ onig, K. Yang, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Braid-protected topological band structures with unpaired exceptional points, Phys. Rev. Research 5, L042010 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    K. Yang, Z. Li, J. L. K. K¨ onig, et al., Homotopy, symmetry, and non-Hermitian band topology , Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 078002 (2024)

    2024

  6. [12]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Alu, Exceptional points in optics and photonics , Science 363, eaar7709 (2019)

    2019

  7. [13]

    T. E. Lee, Anomalous Edge State in a Non-Hermitian Lattice , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)

    2016

  8. [14]

    Yao and Z

    S. Yao and Z. Wang, Edge States and Topological Invariants of Non-Hermitian Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086803 (2018)

    2018

  9. [15]

    F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Biorthogonal Bulk-Boundary Correspondence in Non- Hermitian Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 026808 (2018)

    2018

  10. [16]

    Okuma, K

    N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Topological Origin of Non-Hermitian Skin Effects , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 086801 (2020)

    2020

  11. [17]

    Ghatak, M

    A. Ghatak, M. Brandenbourger, J. v. Wezel, and C. Coulais, Observation of non-Hermitian topology and its bulk–edge correspondence in an active mechanical metamaterial , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 (47), 29561-29568 (2020)

    2020

  12. [18]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Zhang, M.-H. Lu, and Y.-F. Chen, A review on non-hermitian skin effect , Advances in Physics: X 7, 2109431 (2022)

    2022

  13. [19]

    R. Lin, T. Tai, L. Li, and C. H. Lee, Topological Non-Hermitian skin effect, Front. Phys. 18, 53605 (2023)

    2023

  14. [20]

    C.-X. Guo, X. Wang, H. Hu, and S. Chen, Accumulation of scale-free localized states induced by local non-Hermiticity , Phys. Rev. B 107, 134121 (2023)

    2023

  15. [21]

    Li, H.-R

    B. Li, H.-R. Wang, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Scale-free localization and PT symmetry breaking from local non-Hermiticity , Phys. Rev. B 108, L161409 (2023)

    2023

  16. [22]

    Molignini, O

    P. Molignini, O. Arandes, and E. J. Bergholtz, Anomalous skin effects in disordered systems with a single non-Hermitian impurity, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 033058 (2023)

    2023

  17. [23]

    X. Xie, G. Liang, F. Ma, et al., Observation of scale-free localized states induced by non-Hermitian defects , Phys. Rev. B 109, L140102 (2024)

    2024

  18. [24]

    Xiong, Why does bulk boundary correspondence fail in some non-hermitian topological models , J

    Y. Xiong, Why does bulk boundary correspondence fail in some non-hermitian topological models , J. Phys. Commun. 2, 035043 (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    Edvardsson and E

    E. Edvardsson and E. Ardonne, Sensitivity of non-Hermitian systems , Phys. Rev. B 106, 11510 (2022)

    2022

  20. [26]

    L. N. Trefethen, Pseudospectra of Linear Operators, SIAM Review 39, Iss. 3 (1997)

    1997

  21. [27]

    J. C. Budich and E. J. Bergholtz, Non-Hermitian topological sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 180403 (2020)

    2020

  22. [28]

    Wiersig, Sensors operating at exceptional points: General theory , Phys

    J. Wiersig, Sensors operating at exceptional points: General theory , Phys. Rev. A 93, 033809 (2016)

    2016

  23. [29]

    Zhong, J

    Q. Zhong, J. Ren, M. Khajavikhan, et al., Sensing with Exceptional Surfaces in Order to Combine Sensitivity with Robust- ness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 153902 (2019)

    2019

  24. [30]

    Zhang, W

    M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, et al., Quantum Noise Theory of Exceptional Point Amplifying Sensors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180501 (2019)

    2019

  25. [31]

    C.-H. Liu, F. Li, S. Du, et al., Scaling of quantum Fisher information for quantum exceptional point sensors , arXiv:2404.03803v1

    arXiv

  26. [32]

    Chen, S ¸

    W. Chen, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, G. Zhao, et al., Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity , Nature 548, 192–196 (2017)

    2017

  27. [33]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. Hassan, S. Wittek, et al., Enhanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points , Nature 548, 187–191 (2017)

    2017

  28. [34]

    S. Wang, B. Hou, W. Lu, et al., Arbitrary order exceptional point induced by photonic spin–orbit interaction in coupled resonators, Nat. Commun. 10, 832 (2019)

    2019

  29. [35]

    Kononchuk, J

    R. Kononchuk, J. Cai, F. Ellis, et al., Exceptional-point-based accelerometers with enhanced signal-to-noise ratio , Nature 607, 697–702 (2022)

    2022

  30. [36]

    Langbein, No exceptional precision of exceptional-point sensors , Phys

    W. Langbein, No exceptional precision of exceptional-point sensors , Phys. Rev. A 98, 023805 (2018)

    2018

  31. [37]

    C. Chen, L. Jin and R.-B. Liu, Sensitivity of parameter estimation near the exceptional point of a non-Hermitian system , New J. Phys. 21, 083002 (2019)

    2019

  32. [38]

    Duggan, S

    R. Duggan, S. A. Mann, and A. Al` u, Limitations of Sensing at an Exceptional Point , ACS Photonics 9 (5), 1554-1566 (2022)

    2022

  33. [39]

    Loughlin and V

    H. Loughlin and V. Sudhir, Exceptional-Point Sensors Offer No Fundamental Signal-to-Noise Ratio Enhancement , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 243601 (2024)

    2024

  34. [40]

    Wang, Y.-H

    H. Wang, Y.-H. Lai, Z. Yuan, et al., Petermann-factor sensitivity limit near an exceptional point in a Brillouin ring laser gyroscope, Nat. Commun. 11, 1610 (2020)

    2020

  35. [41]

    Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors , Photon

    J. Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors , Photon. Res. 8, 1457-1467 (2020)

    2020

  36. [42]

    Lau and A

    H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, Fundamental limits and non-reciprocal approaches in non-Hermitian quantum sensing , Nat. Commun. 9, 4320 (2018)

    2018

  37. [43]

    J.-X. Peng, B. Zhu, W. Zhang, and K. Zhang, Enhanced Quantum Metrology with Non-Phase-Covariant Noise , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 090801 (2024)

    2024

  38. [44]

    W. Ding, X. Wang, and S. Chen, Fundamental Sensitivity Limits for Non-Hermitian Quantum Sensors , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160801 (2023). 23

    2023

  39. [45]

    C. C. Wanjura, M. Brunelli, and A. Nunnenkamp, Topological framework for directional amplification in driven-dissipative cavity arrays, Nat. Commun. 11, 3149 (2020)

    2020

  40. [46]

    Schomerus, Nonreciprocal response theory of non-Hermitian mechanical metamaterials: Response phase transition from the skin effect of zero modes , Phys

    H. Schomerus, Nonreciprocal response theory of non-Hermitian mechanical metamaterials: Response phase transition from the skin effect of zero modes , Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013058 (2020

    2020

  41. [47]

    Koch and J

    F. Koch and J. C. Budich Quantum non-Hermitian topological sensors , Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013113 (2022)

    2022

  42. [48]

    Q. Wang, C. Zhu, Y. Wang, et al., Amplification of quantum signals by the non-Hermitian skin effect , Phys. Rev. B 106, (2022)

    2022

  43. [49]

    H. Xu, U. Deli´ c, G. Wang, et al.,Exponentially Enhanced Non-Hermitian Cooling , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 110402 (2024)

    2024

  44. [50]

    H. Yuan, W. Zhang, Z. Zhou, et al., Non-Hermitian Topolectrical Circuit Sensor with High Sensitivity , Adv. Sci. 10, 2301128 (2023)

    2023

  45. [51]

    K¨ onye, K

    V. K¨ onye, K. Ochkan, A. Chyzhykova, et al.,Non-Hermitian topological ohmmeter, Phys. Rev. Applied 22, L031001 (2024)

    2024

  46. [52]

    Wang and A

    Y.-X. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Non-Hermitian dynamics without dissipation in quantum systems , Phys. Rev. A 99, 063834 (2019)

    2019

  47. [53]

    McDonald, T

    A. McDonald, T. Pereg-Barnea, and A. A. Clerk, Phase-Dependent Chiral Transport and Effective Non-Hermitian Dynam- ics in a Bosonic Kitaev-Majorana Chain , Phys. Rev. X 8, 041031 (2018)

    2018

  48. [54]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Localization Transitions in Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996)

    1996

  49. [55]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Vortex pinning and non-Hermitian quantum mechanics , Phys. Rev. B 56, 8651 (1997)

    1997

  50. [56]

    Hatano and D

    N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Non-Hermitian delocalization and eigenfunctions , Phys. Rev. B 58, 8384 (1998)

    1998

  51. [57]

    J. J. Slim, C. C. Wanjura, M. Brunelli, et al., Optomechanical realization of the bosonic Kitaev chain, Nature 627, 767–771 (2024)

    2024

  52. [58]

    J. H. Busnaina, Z. Shi, A. McDonald, et al., Quantum simulation of the bosonic Kitaev chain , Nat. Commun. 15, 3065 (2024)

    2024

  53. [59]

    Leefmans, A

    C. Leefmans, A. Dutt, J. Williams, et al., Topological dissipation in a time-multiplexed photonic resonator network , Nat. Phys. 18, 442–449 (2022)

    2022

  54. [60]

    Parto, C

    M. Parto, C. Leefmans, J. Williams, and A. Marandi, Enhanced sensitivity via non-Hermitian topology, arXiv:2305.03282v1

    arXiv

  55. [62]

    L. Bao, B. Qi, and D. Dong, Exponentially Enhanced Quantum Non-Hermitian Sensing via Optimized Coherent Drive , Phys. Rev. Applied 17, 014034 (2022)

    2022

  56. [63]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene , Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  57. [64]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Soliton excitations in polyacetylene , Phys. Rev. B 22, 2099 (1980)

    1980

  58. [65]

    Zhang and T

    R. Zhang and T. Chen, True exponentially enhanced sensing in the non-Hermitian topological phase , Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 17 (2024)

    2024

  59. [66]

    Wan and X.-Y

    L.-L. Wan and X.-Y. L¨ u,Quantum-Squeezing-Induced Point-Gap Topology and Skin Effect , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 203605 (2023)

    2023

  60. [67]

    B. Abdo, A. Kamal, and M. Devoret, Nondegenerate three-wave mixing with the Josephson ring modulator , Phys. Rev. B 87, 014508 (2013)

    2013

  61. [68]

    Fitzpatrick, N

    M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, et al., Observation of a Dissipative Phase Transition in a One-Dimensional Circuit QED Lattice, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011016 (2017)

    2017

  62. [69]

    N. E. Frattini, U. Vool, S. Shankar, et al., 3-wave mixing Josephson dipole element , Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 222603 (2017)

    2017

  63. [70]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, et al., A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  64. [71]

    C. S. Wang, J. C. Curtis, B. J. Lester, et al., Efficient Multiphoton Sampling of Molecular Vibronic Spectra on a Super- conducting Bosonic Processor, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021060 (2020)

    2020

  65. [72]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  66. [73]

    D. W. C. Brooks, T. Botter, S. Schreppler, et al., Non-classical light generated by quantum-noise-driven cavity optome- chanics, Nature 488, 476–480 (2012)

    2012

  67. [74]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini, S. Gr¨ oblacher, J. T. Hill, et al.,Squeezed light from a silicon micromechanical resonator , Nature 500, 185–189 (2013)

    2013

  68. [75]

    del Pino, J

    J. del Pino, J. J. Slim, and E. Verhagen, Non-Hermitian chiral phononics through optomechanically induced squeezing , Nature 606, 82–87 (2022)

    2022

  69. [76]

    Mittal, E

    S. Mittal, E. A. Goldschmidt, and M. Hafezi, A topological source of quantum light , Nature 561, 502–506 (2018)

    2018

  70. [77]

    Edvardsson, F

    E. Edvardsson, F. K. Kunst, T. Yoshida, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phase transitions and generalized biorthogonal polarization in non-Hermitian systems , Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043046 (2020)

    2020

  71. [78]

    S. M. Rafi-Ul-Islam, Z. B. Siu, Md. S. H. Razo, and M. B.A. Jalil, Saturation Dynamics in Non-Hermitian Topological Sensing Systems , arXiv:2406.19629v1

    arXiv

  72. [79]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation , Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  73. [81]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology , International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125-137 (2009)

    2009

  74. [82]

    Banchi, S

    L. Banchi, S. L. Braunstein, and S. Pirandola, Quantum Fidelity for Arbitrary Gaussian States , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 24 260501 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    Pinel, P

    O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, et al., Quantum parameter estimation using general single-mode Gaussian states , Phys. Rev. A 88, 040102 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Fortin, K

    C. Fortin, K. Wang, and T. Pereg-Barnea, Non-Hermitian Topological Phase Transition of the Bosonic Kitaev Chain , arXiv:2412.09744v1

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    L. Bao, B. Qi, F. Nori, and D. Dong, Exponential sensitivity revival of noisy non-Hermitian quantum sensing with two- photon drives , Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023216 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Metelmann and A

    A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Nonreciprocal Photon Transmission and Amplification via Reservoir Engineering , Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    Y.-X. Wang, C. Wang, and A. A. Clerk, Quantum Nonreciprocal Interactions via Dissipative Gauge Symmetry , PRX Quantum 4, 010306 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Xie and C

    D. Xie and C. Xu, Nonreciprocal Quantum Sensing, arXiv:2407.14739v1

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Note that when the driving parameter t1, t2 are set to zero, the blocks i hX and i hP combine to produce a Hermitian dynamical matrix, as expected

    Technically, the term dynamical matrix should refer to i times the matrix formed by the blocks hX and hP . Note that when the driving parameter t1, t2 are set to zero, the blocks i hX and i hP combine to produce a Hermitian dynamical matrix, as expected

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.